Delving into system's ills

By Afreeha Jawad

Man's organisational capabilities down the ages into tribes, groups, communities and what came to be known as the state gives an insight into his thirst for power and identity. As the state evolved into what later came to be known as the nation state, one could ask what that nation state has come to mean or rather made to mean in the national interest and common good.

The pre-colonial state particularly of Aristotle's era - the city state as he called it, centred around public good. As a result, we see the rulers in such political surroundings to be men of high moral calibre holding themselves accountable to the people.

However, the post industrial, consumerist nation state that followed changed the status quo from a period of moral authority to irresponsible and corrupt governance resulting in much social frustration. However, it could be argued whether the system could be blamed for man's folly into self propagation.

Man's civilisational growth starting 4.5 billion years ago brought him both comfort and misery as he moved from modernity to modernism.

While modernity revolved around inventions, modernism was the abuse of such. For instance the discovery of time was a positive finding yet it all turned negative when the time bomb was introduced. In fact modernism made man miss out on the higher purpose for which he was created leading him into believing illusion to be reality every step of the way.

Early rulers and morality

Least developed societies saw the most cultivated minds - both rulers and ruled. Not surprising then the emphasis on public good by rulers of those times. Biblical characters such as king David and Solomon outstandingly were rulers of high moral moulding not to forget the ancient kings here as well.

All in all the state of pre-industrial times inspired its citizenry into moral competency.

Aristotle even expressed the state to be part of natural man whose thinking power and communicative capability he believed was nature's facilitation of man into organised government. Accordingly, the organisation of state he saw as being pre-ordained for man. As a natural institution his placement of the state was of a high order as working for the citizens' well being.

As such, Aristotle believed all other organizational enterprises to be of secondary importance. He even presumed man's ultimate happiness to be unattainable without the institution of state. As an instrument to people's individuality he felt man would end in 'social expiry' without it. In short, he believed man to be dead without the state.

Family and possessiveness

To Aristotle, the family was a social institution followed by the village comprising many families culminating in the city state. That sadly was only an ideal. What he failed to see was in all three the constant working towards 'I', 'me' and 'mine' moving man into ego inflation.

As man took to civilizational growth his indulgence in personal gain over public good was inevitable and knew no bounds making the family and state a distant wail from what he had in mind.

His idea of what the state should be left no room for a state/church dichotomy.

Instead its fusion or unification was what he had in mind. God or morality was very much part of the state - in other words the moral force was to be 'state emblem' both in presentation and implementation to be impacting a citizenry towards a high moral order. Religion's misuse for power consolidation was not characteristic pre-nation state governance.

In fact modern day UN covenants of social economic/cultural rights is an attempt to move governments towards public welfare. In some countries the non-fulfilment of such rights enables people to even take the state to task. These endeavours then are nothing new as they relive or at least try to do so. Aristotle and Plato all over again.

Charismatic leaders of pre-nation states were replaced in post Colonial times as elected representatives in worldwide legislatures making charisma itself highly questionable.

Charismatic leadership

In natural societies, community identification of charisma came on voluntarily - those leaders themselves reflecting an aura of moral eminence. Least developed societies significantly with its relatively less complicated and complexed lifestyles carried with them the native ingenious to detect such elegance.

How far are modern societies under nation state environs better off with their bureaucratic structure and elected representatives if in introducing the new system was to rectify the old one's ills.

Custom bound pre-nation states gave way to the law driven post colonial ones. The law's regimentation replaced values of a high order - seemingly an effort towards a 'nothing personal' nature- a kind of imagined objectivity. Rules, laws, ordinances and the like were to govern post colonial states devoid of subjectivity and how successful the intended impersonal administrative system has proved is worth examining for under such status quo, what is called 'nothing personal' state, is discretely operative, matters of a highly personal nature - Max Weber's ideal bureaucracy itself finding neat burial in the cemetery of politicization.

Yet there was much irony in the belief that custom bound societies ran to personal whims and fancies.

Moving away from caste to class, from custom to law's regimentation, from modernity into modernism and from state to statism, man has marched on into what he calls a developed lifestyle yet unceasingly destructive.

Each of the above systems are not without its accompanying plus points needless to speak of its ills.

Emulation worthy

For instance the nation state system itself is an opportunity for man to work towards public well-being over personal gain though what followed was a sort of 'turning tables' situation.

Even anti British hardliners like Yusuf Meherally - an Indian freedom fighter and Congress Party founder member took a 180 degree shift in attitude towards the British when he said close upon India's Independence,

"Anyday we will be free. They will be leaving. Gandhi says now that they are going we must remember the best of British civilization - the rule of law, their sense of fairplay and so on we should remember and keep it.

Famous Indian writer Ramachandran Guha in one of his critiques says of Meherally.

"Half a century later the advice seems as sensible as when it was offered. I am no party to Pepsi and KFC but I do know that the best of western civilization is still to offer and we are yet to get hold of it. The most human of their governments - say England and Norway treat their women and their poor fairly. The best of their scientists in Germany and US turn their research to practical consequences and human betterment. Ours articulate strings of research papers, many of dubious quality and chairmanship of committees.

Their industrialists often donate their surplus monies to foundations funding the arts. Ours more often put it away in Swiss Banks. Their public servants are by and large honest, hard working and efficient. In the isolated instances when they are caught with their hand in the fill, they are brought to book by courts, media and legislature. Consider by way of contrast the fact that no single Indian politician has ever been convicted for corruption despite a majority of them being guilty on this score."

Guha's contempt of Indians that prefer Madonna to Ravi Shankar, T shirts to kurtas and KFC to Tandoori points out how proper emulation of the west in crafting public institutions is overlooked which Japan and Singapore have done successfully.

Come to think of it, institutional mechanisms are not to be blamed. Much depends on the spirit of the people who operate such mechanism.

[email protected]